Live trial performance of the Australian Fire Danger Rating System - Research Prototype

被引:5
|
作者
Grootemaat, S. [1 ,3 ]
Matthews, S. [1 ,4 ]
Kenny, B. J. [1 ,5 ]
Runcie, J. W. [1 ]
Hollis, J. J. [1 ,6 ]
Sauvage, S. [2 ]
Fox-Hughes, P. [2 ]
Holmes, A. [1 ]
机构
[1] New South Wales Rural Fire Serv, 4 Murray Rose Ave, Sydney Olymp Pk, NSW 2127, Australia
[2] Bur Meteorol, Res Program, 7-111 Macquarie St, Hobart, Tas 7000, Australia
[3] NSW Natl Pk & Wildlife Serv, 4PS,12 Darcy St, Parramatta, NSW 2150, Australia
[4] Nova Syst, 100 William St, Woolloomooloo, NSW 2011, Australia
[5] Nat Conservat Council NSW, Sydney, NSW 2010, Australia
[6] Dept Biodivers Conservat & Attract, Brain St, Manjimup, WA 6258, Australia
关键词
bushfire risk; fire behaviour; fire behaviour models; fire danger forecast; fire management; forecast system; fuel types; system evaluation; INITIAL-ATTACK; EXPERT-JUDGMENT; MODEL; PRODUCTIVITY; SUPPRESSION; INTEGRATION; VARIABLES; BEHAVIOR; INDEXES; FOREST;
D O I
10.1071/WF23143
中图分类号
S7 [林业];
学科分类号
0829 ; 0907 ;
摘要
Background. The Australian Fire Danger Rating System program (AFDRS) has built a new fire danger rating system for Australia. A live trial of the system's Research Prototype (AFDRSRP), based on fire behaviour thresholds, was run and evaluated between October 2017 and March 2018. Aims. Live trial results are critically analysed, and knowledge gaps and recommendations for future work discussed. Methods. Australian bushfire experts assessed wildfires and prescribed burns across a range of vegetation types and weather conditions. Forecast fire danger ratings calculated using: (1) AFDRSRP; and (2) Forest Fire Danger Index (FFDI) and Grassland Fire Danger Index (GFDI) were compared against ratings derived by expert opinion for each evaluation fire (n = 336). Key results. Overall performance of AFDRSRP was superior to the FFDI/GFDI system (56 vs 43% correct), with a tendency to over-predict rather than under-predict fire potential. AFDRSRP also demonstrated its value to assess fire danger in fuel types not conforming to current grassland or forest models; e.g. for fuels that were grouped to use mallee-heath, spinifex and shrubland fire spread models. Conclusions. The AFDRSRP live trial was successful, outperforming the existing operational fire danger system. Implications Identified improvements would further enhance AFDRSRP performance, ensuring readiness for operational implementation.
引用
收藏
页数:15
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Reanalysis of ECMWF data for updating the Fire Weather Index for the Indonesia Fire Danger Rating System (InaFDRS)
    Purwandani, Andri
    Frederik, Marina C. G.
    Sulistyowati, Reni
    Sumargana, Lena
    Meliani, Fanny
    Alhasanah, Fauziah
    Widiastuti, Yulia
    Agustan
    2021 IEEE ASIA-PACIFIC CONFERENCE ON GEOSCIENCE, ELECTRONICS AND REMOTE SENSING TECHNOLOGY (AGERS-2021), 2021, : 24 - 27
  • [32] Evaluation of new methods for drought estimation in the Canadian Forest Fire Danger Rating System
    Hanes, Chelene C.
    Wotton, Mike
    Bourgeau-Chavez, Laura
    Woolford, Douglas G.
    Belair, Stephane
    Martell, David
    Flannigan, Mike D.
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF WILDLAND FIRE, 2023, 32 (06) : 836 - 853
  • [33] Modernizing the US National Fire Danger Rating System (version 4): Simplified fuel models and improved live and dead fuel moisture calculations
    Jolly, W. Matt
    Freeborn, Patrick H.
    Bradshaw, Larry S.
    Wallace, Jon
    Brittain, Stuart
    ENVIRONMENTAL MODELLING & SOFTWARE, 2024, 181
  • [34] Enhancement of Fire Danger Rating System for a Better Land/Forest Fire Warning in South Sumatera Province - Indonesia
    Khomarudin, Muhammad Rokhis
    Roswintiarti, Orbita
    Prasasti, Indah
    Kartika, Tatik
    Nugroho, Udhi Catur
    Aziz, Kholifatul
    Seran, Virgilius Rivan
    EIGHTH GEOINFORMATION SCIENCE SYMPOSIUM 2023: GEOINFORMATION SCIENCE FOR SUSTAINABLE PLANET, 2024, 12977
  • [35] Better bushfire safety decision-making: Making sense of complexities and challenges surrounding 'Stay or Go' and the Australian Fire Danger Rating System
    Dwyer, Graham
    Schauble, John
    AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION, 2024, 83 (03) : 496 - 501
  • [36] The Role of Himawari Rainfall Data for Indonesia Fire Danger Rating System (Ina-FDRS)
    Sulistyowati, Reni
    Vianti, Evie A.
    Panjaitan, Andersen L.
    Darmawan, Arief
    Sumargana, Lena
    2018 IEEE ASIA-PACIFIC CONFERENCE ON GEOSCIENCE, ELECTRONICS AND REMOTE SENSING TECHNOLOGY (AGERS), 2018, : 41 - 44
  • [37] Comparing the performance of daily forest fire danger summary metrics for estimating fire activity in southern Australian forests
    Plucinski, M. P.
    Sullivan, A. L.
    McCaw, W. L.
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF WILDLAND FIRE, 2020, 29 (10) : 926 - 938
  • [38] Development of an integrated wildfire danger rating system for pre-fire planning and incident forecasting
    Zacharakis, Ioannis
    Tsihrintzis, Vassilios A.
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF DISASTER RISK REDUCTION, 2025, 116
  • [39] Calibration and evaluation of the Canadian Forest Fire Weather Index (FWI) System for improved wildland fire danger rating in the United Kingdom
    de Jong, Mark C.
    Wooster, Martin J.
    Kitchen, Karl
    Manley, Cathy
    Gazzard, Rob
    McCall, Frank F.
    NATURAL HAZARDS AND EARTH SYSTEM SCIENCES, 2016, 16 (05) : 1217 - 1237
  • [40] Reaction intensity partitioning: a new perspective of the National Fire Danger Rating System Energy Release Component
    Fujioka, Francis M.
    Weise, David R.
    Chen, Shyh-Chin
    Kim, Seung Hee
    Kafatos, Menas C.
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF WILDLAND FIRE, 2021, 30 (05) : 351 - 364